About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
CSPAN 40
LANGUAGE
English 40
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)
of that had no real basis in technology or economics. on the other hand, i guess my standard is not as high in the sense that when either a judge or regulatory commission makes a pro competitive decision, that is good news because that is better than what they normally do. so i believe the best pitcher was an important -- i believe divestiture was an important event, one of many because the american telecommunications system, to have its best performance in the world and the reason it is competitive. >> paul? >> professor noll, you mentioned there were some errors that judge greene made. what were some of those errors? >> the premise, judge greene believe something that at&t argued prior to their change of heart to go along with the the best pitcher, which was the weak sister of the old bell system was the local operating committees. so when the divestiture, it was silly at this time to go into the details because most are irrelevant today, but what he did, whenever there was a close call, the divestiture decision was something in favor of the local operating companies and against the inter
america are movies, tv, science, technology. they're not keen on democracy as america preaches it. heading into another four years of the obama administration, where are we, and why are we here, and how do we get somewhere else? what went wrong, what is going right, and what to do about it going forward? >> first of all, i do not think that favorability ratings and the pew surveys of evidence of whether we're doing something wrong or right. i think it is a huge mistake for anybody who practices public diplomacy to think that his or her job is to win a popularity contest. well i guess maybe some of us who were in the bush administration can take a certain pleasure in effect in 2008, the favorability ratings for the united states were higher in four out of the five surveyed arab countries -- i am not even going to bring that up. [laughter] and it is a big mistake. in my view, and what i tried to do during my short tenure as undersecretary, is try to focus attention on what public diplomacy can do to achieve specific ends that are part of their goals in foreign policy and national security po
. we had had a trade surplus last year for first time in almost ho years. and with technology investment many the u.k., now at 10-year high, it's not just the omed industries that are growing again, it is the new. so with all this and more, i truly believe that in this new century, just as in the centurys that came before, our done fri, britain can succeed. so let me turn. helping britain sell abroad is the fy tall part of the answer. but winning abroad actually begins at home. our country will only rise if we let our people rise. if we break aspiration and those who wanted to get on in life that means sorting out our welfare system and education because the most powerful natural resources we have are our people. i took the whole cabinet today to an academy school in bristol to show the transformation we need in our education system right across country. we need schools with high standards and high expectations so all our children get a proper start in this new competitive world. of course, we also need to deal with the deaf so it we can safeguard low interest rates and give b
in second place to those countries in the new technology industries of the future and i think that plays an important role. you know the obama vision was one where they thought better suited the country. and there is no question on social issues. whether it is women's health care, immigration, gay rights. there are a set of issues particularly for younger voters so, people vote very, very carefully. the economy was a dominant issue. i think that is why ultimately some people chose the president to continue the journey we are on. now quickly in terms of democracy, you know we don't know this for sure, but we could be seeing very different elections. that of that in 2010, 14, maybe 18 will be quite a bit different. the comments i made two years ago were predicated on what we thought would happen in a presidential year. the latino turnout was surging. president winning more of the latino votes but even winning the cuban votes. you saw young votes exceeding the turnout from four years ago surprising most analysts. you saw african american turnout. you saw the excitement of the first african
the parched lands of the sahel and congo, technology is transforming things. everything is speeding up. everything is opening up. now, if i can talk about something i actually know about for a moment. this feeling reminds me a little bit, maybe more than a little bit of the arrival of punk rock in the mid 1970's. you see, the clash were the very base of the rock and roll pyramid and overnight gave the finger to the dreadful business, the lurgy at the time that was at the top of the pyramid. it was called progressive rock. epic lyrics, no hooks, no -- great reviews. [laughter] punk bands made no reference of being worthy of the audience. if you want to play, great, grab a guitar and you're in. the clash were like a public service announcement with guitars, and they gave youtube the idea that social activism could make for a very musical riot. so i'd just like to point out that none of your professors, not a single one, not ever has ever drawn or is likely to draw the connection between the arab spring and the clash. just a little intermission. [applause] and ok. sharpen your pencils. i
in the cyberworld. technology drives everything we do the world wide web has made us more interconnected than at any time in our human history. the vast majority of our emperor structure resides in private sector. let me repeat that. the vast majority of our infrastructure in the united states reside in the private sector. the national security risks and economic risks are still with the private sector. the government does not do it alone. they do it in concert with all of our partners. our partners of the private sector. for those, but the work of the government or private sector, you can contribute no matter where you are in whatever your professional desired is. this private sector holds a lot of data. these assets are pretty profound. their protection to the united states priorities is of national importance. the president declared recently, and i quote, here is a list of priorities, this is in the top five. the cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation and america's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security.
? it happened because of the force of power of the information technology boom, the creation of private credit, and rapid increase in tax revenues. stephanie showed us something that was not a forecast at the time. those who were there in 2000 remember that the secretary of the treasury at the time and the chairman of the federal reserve were talking about a 13-year horizon for the complete elimination of the public debt. there was no forecast that the technology boom would come to an end, but it did. from 2000 onward, we were back into a more normal position of the government running substantial deficits as the private sector rebuild its financial position. that is the first point. long-term forecasts, the idea that one can control the future position of the debt and deficit by actions taken today, is an extremely tenuous and debatable idea. the second point is that there are certain assumptions being made which create extremely scary scenarios. those numbers that were shown -- in stephanie's presentation, the expectation that public debt would rise close to 200% of gdp by 2005. what is that
will be better equipped. it will mean less spending on technology, less capital available, and less capital for entrepreneurs. a decline in american ingenuity would be a consequence and over time, there would be a decline of more -- our position. as oil prices adjust, market forces could reach a point where investors refuse to buy u.s. treasury bonds. we see investors' reaction to the potential of these realizations now through an aversion to risk. trillion7's, over $1 have flowed into bonds and a greater amount has flowed out of equities. in addition, this act set as a deterrent for investment 3 $1 trillion moving into fixed income where fixed-income is basically paying zero. that shows a fundamental aversion to risk which is new to our society and culture since 2007. for companies able to access the credit markets, the times have been pretty good. investors' appetite for this debt translates into cheap money for many companies. many star companies and this applies to what glenn was reckoned -- referencing -- [inaudible] rely on equity financing. the vicious cycle we're in today, the side
of another republican. we keep forgetting that. we're not using a new technology. romney, i think there was prejudice in the party against his mormonism. i think a lot of evangelists stood back as they did when john mccain ran. we were 3 million votes down. i would like to hear what the other republicans have to say about that. i think bobby jindal is going down the wrong route in jumping on romney now. we had fractional primaries and that took a lot of steam out of romney and set us up for the democratic assaults. host: in georgia now, charles. caller: calling from cleveland, georgia. i believe the republican party pass to get back to the constitution. these undeclared wars have to stop. we threw away the ron paul supporters. we needed them to defeat obama. romney did not mention the constitution many times -excuse- me, i'm nervous. we have to go back to the constitution. if the republicans don't go by the constitution, they are no better than the democrats. host: plenty more time for your voices. looking for your phone calls, facebook posts, and tweets. more from the weekend act
and involvement in the cyber war. technology drives everything we do. the internet has made is more connected than at any other time. the vast majority of our infrastructure reside in private sector. let me repeat that. the vast majority of our infrastructure reside in the private sector. the national security risks and the economic risks are still with the private sector. the government does not do it alone. they do it in concert with our partners and our partners are the private sector. for those of you were talking to earlier, with the work for the government or the private sector, you can contribute no matter where you are in whatever your professional desire is. this private-sector holds a lot of data and these are pretty profound -- their protection of the priorities is he has a list of priorities. this is the top five. the cyber threat is among the most serious challenges we face as a nation, and america's prosperity will depend on cyber security. the united states does have a huge challenge. we have a much larger body of sensitive and potentially damaging information to protect in most cou
strikes me as a step to get the behavioral change and the technological innovation we will need to adjust and adapt to what we have already done. a carbon tax also raises revenue in a way that could be used in different forms. it has an additional benefit associated with it. i am in favor of it. i do not think it is remotely plausible within the narrow political discussion we're having today. >> we start seeing gasoline prices coming down because the price of oil starts to fall because of all the activity producing in this country, maybe that will be an opportunity to increase the federal gasoline tax. with 50 cents a gallon federal tax. >> the only problem is from a climate perspective, transportation and gasoline is a small share of the problem. the problem is really in the energy sector. without a carbon tax, you're not directly getting at that. >> i think the carbon tax makes enormous sense to do with the environment impact of energy use. you can design one in a way that does not cause too much harm for american industries that compete with folks abroad. consumption tax, there are thi
. in energy we have created 1 billion pounds for capture in storage, one of the key technologies of the future. we created the world's first green investment bank. we're pioneering a new incentive for heat systems in people's homes, and we are putting in place a robust financial framework to incentivize renewable electricity. as a result, more than 12 billion pounds has been committed to into renewable projects in the u.k. and the past 18 months alone with the potential to support around 20,000 new jobs. we've also created new incentives to squeeze more oil and gas out of the north sea, including from the marginal fields. when we see opportunity, we must go for it. look at the way we of got behind tech city right here in london. two years ago there were around 200 digital companies. today there are 1200. with major tech companies like amazon and facebook setting up developer centers, this is now becoming the fastest-growing technology cluster anywhere in the world. we will be publishing new strategies for aerospace and ameritech, alongside it clear, offshore renewable and more to come. this st
a trade surplus for the first time in almost 40 years. with technology invest in the u.k. now at a 10-year high, it is not just the old industries growing again, it is the new. with all this and more, i truly believe in this new century, just as of the sentries that came before, our country, britain, can succeed. let me turn to hal. helping britain's sell abroad is of vital part of the answer. -- let me turn to how. our country will only rise if we let our people rise. if we back aspiration of those that want to get on in life, that means sorting out the welfare system and education, because the most powerful na
the latest and greatest technology. they called it a 10:00 fire, meaning it would be beat by 10:00 the next morge. finally the wind shifted direction and they found themselves running up this hill for dear life. the leader of this group lit a match and he burned the area around them, this way when the fire came and over-took him, he would be safe, and he -- it is now known as a safe fire. he called for his men to come and join him. he remained unharmed in his escape fire, and they all died. it is a metaphor that we are all running up the hill sticking to the status quo when the answer is right here in front of us. >> here is another couple people we see right here in front of us. the former journalist sharon brownly and dr. lesley cho. why did you pick her as a spokesperson? >> she has written a book called "over-treated." that book was sort of seminole for us in understanding that more is not better when it comes to health care, that more can actually hurt us. it was her book that really explained that to us. and therefore i saw her out to be in our film. >> the vast majority of physicians
phone. across the parched land of the dense rain forests of the congo. technology is transforming things. everything is speeding up. everything is opening up. if i can talk about something i actually know about for a moment, this reminds me of the arrival of punk rock in the mid- 70's. the clash was the very base of the rock-and-roll pyramid. overnight they gave the finger to be dreadful business that was at the top of the pyramid. it was called progressive rock. epix song, know the lyrics. great reviews. -- epic songs, no good lyrics. great reviews. but the band made no pretense of being better than the audience appeared they were the audience. virtuosity was out. the clash were like a public- service announcement with the cars. -- guitars. they gave u2 the idea that social activism could make for a good social right. i would like to point out none of your professors as ever draw the connection between the arab spring and the clash. [applause] [laughter] little intermission. ok. sharpen your pencils. i do not need to lecture you about change of the air you breathe. you are in it. i thin
will take money from the airline industry that would otherwise be invested in nextgen technologies and the purchase of new aircraft, two proven methods for improving environmental performance and for reducing emissions. airlines for america and air transport trade association testified before our aviation subcommittee last year that the extraction of capital from the aviation system as enadviceaged under the e.u.'s emission trading scheme could threaten over 78,000 american jobs. this is unacceptable. but despite serious legal issues and ons -- objections by the international community, the european union is pressing ahead with its plans. in september, 2012, 21 countries, including the united states, signed a joint declaration against the e.u. emissions trading scheme in new delhi, india. the last year there have been several other multinational meetings of countries who oppose the scheme, including meetings that took place in russia and the united states. the bill before us directs the secretary of transportation to prohibit u.s. aircraft operators from participating in this illeg
were dropped in to fight this fire. filled with the latest and greatest technology. and through this hubris they called it a 10:00 fire. to be beat by 10:00 the next morning. suddenly the wind shifted direction and they found themselves running up this hill for dear life and the leader of this group lit a match, he burned the area around him so when the fire came and overtook him he would be safe in whatsdz now know what's now known as an escape fire. and he called for his men to join him and nobody did and they all kept running up the hill. they all died and he remained unharmed. and it's really this metaphor that our health care system is burning and we're all running up the hill sticking to the status quo where the answer is right here in front of us. >> here's another couple of people that we see a lot of in the documentary. the journalist -- former journalist sharon and dr. leslie chow. sharon bedroomly was -- shannon excuse me, was with u.s. news at one point. why did you pick her? >> she had written a book called overtreated. and that book was sort of seminal for us in un
that businesses are looking for right now. keeping this country at the forefront of research, technology, and clean energy, putting people back to work rebuilding roads, bridges and schools and reducing our deficit in a balanced and responsible way. on this last item, we face a very clear deadline. that requires us to make some big decisions on jobs, taxes, and deficits by the end of the year. both parties voted to set this deadline. and i believe that both parties can work together to make these decisions in a balanced and responsible way. yesterday, i had a chance to meet with labor and civic leaders for their input. today i meet with c.e.o.'s of some of america's largest companies. and i'll meet with leaders of both party of congress before the week is out because there's only one way to solve the channels and that is to do it together. as i've said before, i'm open to compromise and i'm hope to new ideas. and i've been encouraged over the last week to hear republican after republican agree on the need for more revenue from the wealthiest americans as part of our arithmetic if we're s
? >> they don't do that. the airplane, modern technology, there was no cell phones, fax machines. there were type writers. that's a lot of it. they don't socialize. the reason joe and i could work together, i him and joe and i knew his wife. i wouldn't do anything mean to joe. that's a lot of it. the times have changed so much. in the senate, one of the problems is they got away from regular order. regular order. that sounds like a washington term. what it means is you send a bill to a committee, you have a hearing, you have oversight hearings, you mark up a bill, you have amendments, you vote, you go to the full committee, you go to the senate, you go to the house, you go to conference, you send a bill to the president and he signs it or vetoes it. they don't do that anymore. even the transportation bill, which they finally got done this year, went through an extraordinary procedure really because the house never passed the bill. but they wound up getting a transportation bill. so it's a combination of things. it's modern technology. frankly it is the 24/7 news media. you make a mistake, yo
top technology companies, are asking us to preserve education and r&d, which is the bedrock of innovation and competitiveness. and this week, even the u.s. chamber of commerce said it was opened to a compromise that included revenue. these are the constructive voices i hope my colleagues listen to as we approach negotiations on the fiscal cliff. politics is the art of compromise, and working together we can reduce our nation's deficit and preserve strategic investments in those programs that fuel economic growth and competitiveness. even in the midst of the civil war, president lincoln and the 38th congress authorized the transcontinental railroad, the homestead act and the land grant college and university system. they understood we had to invest in the future while also dealing with the crisis of the present. no doubt we all have something to lose if we do not succeed. so perhaps by each of us giving a little we can revive this economic recovery, restore faith in our ability to govern responsible low and deliver on that mandate we just got last week from the voters. i yiel
for a number of reasons related to technology and globalization. what i think is important about our proposals is that by asking the top 2% to pay more, that will provide more opportunities for others to pick the same types of chances they had. what is the extra revenue going to be used for? it will be used to keep student loans low. it will be used to provide stem education in science and engineering and the kinds of opportunities that have made it possible for so many americans to thrive. if you look at what has happened to the income distribution in the u.s. over the last 30 years, we have seen the top pull away. it is wonderful they have done so well. it is important that we pursue the policies that will reduce the opportunities that and provide more opportunities for the lower and middle-income families. >> do you think 10 years from now our budget deficit will be under $10 trillion per year? where you think it will be realistically? >> i would like to see the president's fiscal path to be enacted. i will refer you and the audience to the president's budget. the president inherited an eco
to bring in new technology. i've got to bring in the uab. fought to bring in the excess equipment from iraq and afghanistan after coming back. we are doing all this. we have to work together. >> i appreciate your efforts. the message being undermined to allow those new resources to happen in to get what we need when we give mixed messages. last year, you have a press release that said the u.s. has not seen any spillover violence. saying that when we are acknowledging that our law enforcement has been engaged in a gun battle. we have had people killed. narcotics have been caught. that is what is competing this. we need to recognize it for what it is. transnational criminal organizations -- we cannot pursue them across the international border. we will put what ever it takes to defend the sovereignty -- >> he made a point that there was a bill to fund more border patrol agents. i think it is well-known that republicans in washington do not like to spend a lot of money. his comments were that members of your own party do not want to fund this initiative. >> people are tired of blaming parties.
has fallen off the table. we have the technology now to make this information available almost instantaneously. why not do it? host: we're talking with kathy kiely of the sunlight foundation. she has covered every presidential election since 1980. we will go to burt on the independent line. caller: i think that soft money is important, but in the grand scheme, not having equal time provisions in our broadcast is probably just as detrimental as not allowing certain opinions to appear. also, media conglomerates aggravate that even more so. guest: i think what the caller is referring to is cable television, which does not have the same rules and regulations. i am not an expert on the legal ramifications of equal time, but i think that is what he is talking about. as to media conglomerate, there are a lot of them, but certainly in this age, there are alternatives, too. host: in everything there is a point of diminishing returns. a road on advertising may do more harm than good. we go out to tempe, ariz. on the democratic line. good morning, lynette. caller: i have not been watching
technology and other research capabilities that are out there where we can learn well ahead of a disaster, that it's coming, that we can then warn the citizens, take whatever precautions are necessary and whatever defense systems may be required. and so it's not just the disaster. it's the preparation. the early warning. the ability to know what may be coming to harm the citizens of this nation. and so as a congress we should be cognizant of the role that we play in providing the resources, the direction and the authorization for those agencies that are able to have the technologies to perceive, to understand what may be coming to the citizens of this nation and those around the world. secondly, as individuals it seems to me we ought to be paying attention, and when the authorities say it's time to leave we really ought to do that. i was the insurance commissioner and lieutenant governor in california and often found myself in situations where i had responsibilities along these lines and all too often and all too tragically, the citizens that were warned early they should leave because of
on science, technology, engineering and mathematics education will ensure the united states remains global competitive force in the marketplace. people across our nation are working together to create a better world, and it's important their efforts be recognized and supported. i encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the benefits and goals of the mathematics of planet earth project. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise to urge my colleagues here in the house of representatives and citizens all across the united states to join in an unambiguous message to support israel in this time of great and dramatic concern and rising tensions in the gaza strip. look, the facts are clear. the 400 rocket that have been launched into -- from gaza into israel over the last 48 hours represent a dramatic provocation of israel and its people. second,
be a light footprint with technological containment of the problem. when i hear $3.3 trillion, i hear the bulk of it is because of what happened on 9/11. my question is, in the new normal, what is the role for militant extremism? is it releasing them from jail and giving them a space and controlling them technologically? thank you. >> i will star with the last. if you think the light footprint strategy is all about containment, then it does raise the question of what are the limits of light footprint? what have we discovered it does not do terribly well? it does not build justice or build the kind of global development that paula was discussing before. it deliberately pulls the united states back from a kind of the engagement that we thought in the post-cold war world that we were heading into. and frankly, you might of thought we were heading into it just listening to president obama during the 2008 campaign when he talked mostly about engagement strategy. we did not hear a lot of discussion about what we have all been talking about here today. i think the fact that we have seen the
. if you talk to some very high technology firms, they will say, sorry, we cannot find enough specialized mathematician's or specialized engineers or an agricultural worker will say we have 7.9% unemployment but i cannot find enough people to help me take care of my harvest. we have 7.9% unemployment, but we do not have enough people in the transportation and logistics arena. perhaps high school kids -- high-school graduates do not want to be truckdrivers these days. they do not want to go back to the farm. it is not totally even. there is evidence that suggests very strongly that immigrants actually take up the slack. they do not compete necessarily with jobs already taken. another of many advantages of legalizing is that wages will have to go up. they will have to formally pay taxes, formally pays social security. the system will be level. there is one thing you said that i think at the core of this. i think it is and a wonderful insight. as the government is getting larger -- and the government is getting larger. the government has grown a four percentage points of gdp in the last four
for assistance, for r and d, science and technology. there is a whole panoply of means by which we will rebalance. ships are important, but there is so much more as we look forward to the future, and we need to requirements of our shuja guidance in this regard. having laid that out, i commend that to you as our future, and how we see things today. as we prepare a budget for the fiscal year 2014, it is to support this very effort i mentioned to you. we are on track and prepare to meet our national security commitment in this regard, and the defense strategic guidance. that you very much, and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> or article speaks about balancing the force. how international ladies played into your strategy? >> the international ladies played into the strategy of my mission, and by the alliance is that we have had. let me speak to the alliance. i spoke to the western pacific. the japanese maritime self- defense force plays -- we cooperate with them to share what we call long-range search and track mission there in the western pacific. what the navies of the republic of ko
century, and so on. it will mean less spending on a rigid on technology and less capital available to existing companies and less capital for entrepreneurs looking to go public on our market. a decline in american ingenuity but would be a consequence in overtime, there would certainly be decline of our position in the world. as all prices adjust to market forces could reach a point where investors refuse to buy u.s. treasury bonds. we see investors' reaction -- reacting to the potential of these realizations now through an aversion to risk. since 2007, over $1 trillion has flowed into bonds and even a greater amount has flowed out of equities. in addition to a lack of clarity about huge tax policy, -- about future tax policy, this act as a deterrent for investments. $1 trillion is moving into fixed income where it is basically paying zero. that shows a fundamental aversion to risk. for companies able to access the credit market, times have been pretty good. investor appetite for this debt translates into cheap money for many companies. many start up companies do not have access to
technology boom, the creation of private credit, and rapid increase in tax revenues. stephanie showed us something that was not a forecast at the time. those who were there in 2000 remember that the secretary of the treasury at the time and the chairman of the federal reserve were talking about a 13-year horizon for the complete elimination of the public debt. there was no forecast that the technology boom would come to an end, but it did. from 2000 onward, we were back into a more normal position of the government running substantial deficits as the private sector rebuild its financial position. that is the first point. long-term forecasts, the idea that one can control the future position of the debt and deficit by actions taken today, is an extremely tenuous and debatable idea. the second point is that there are certain assumptions being made which create extremely scary scenarios. those numbers that were shown -- in stephanie's presentation, the expectation that public debt would rise close to 200% of gdp by 2005. what is that based on? two important assumptions drive these projectio
in the development of state of the art oil spill prevention and response technologies, education research and training. and more than $1 billion will go to the united states coast guard trust fund to be available for clean up and compensation for those affected by oil spills in the gulf and throughout the united states. now as part of its guilty plea b.p. will retain a monitor for four years who will oversee safety and maintenance in regard to drilling in the gulf as well as an independent auditor who will conduct annual reviews to ensure compliance with the terms of this agreement. the company will hire an ethics monitor to improve it's its conduct and foster robust cooperation with the government. now there can be no question that this historic announcement is a critical step forward and under scores the justice determination to stand with gulf coast communities. in february the settlement tote ling $90 million related to the company's clean water act liability for the deep water horizon disaster. and approximately $45 million of this total will go directly to the gulf in the form of pe
the technology now to make this information available online -- almost instantaneously. why not do it? host: we're talking with kathy kiely of the sunlight foundation. she has covered every presidential election since 1980. o2 dirt on the independent line -- we will go to burt on the independent line. caller: i think that soft money is important, but in the grand scheme, not having equal time provisions in our broadcast is probably just as detrimental as not allowing certain opinions to appear. also, media conglomerates aggregate debt even more dart -- and aggravate that even more so. guest: i think what the caller is referring to is cable television, which does not have the same rules and regulations. i am not an expert on the legal ramifications of equal time, but i think that is what he is talking about. as to media conglomerate, there are a lot of them, but certainly in this age, there are alternatives, too. host: laura riding on twitter, -- in everything there is a point of diminishing returns. a road on advertising may do more harm than good. we go out to tempe, ariz. on the democratic li
technology we talked about. it is how the reach people with a live? which for a lot a young people, they are online. idea.boadebroader the other side was effective in taking the comment that the missouri. >> yes, sir. >> senator, it seems to me the policies yet in the fight as may be needing change might have been the policies that were adopted as a necessity to get to the primaries. how do think the primary system can change to allow a candidate to come to that might represent the center right as opposed to the far right. how cannot be adjusted? >> and the democratic and republican side, there is a lot of talk about that. and to you go to a national primary -- until you go to a national primary, which no one is talking about, you will have this issue. there were some iowa republicans recently meeting same they had to be careful. we need to be careful. primaries are going to continue and be good to that process this go round. the president had no primary opponent and he was free to have a rose garden shed jeff burris. we cannot have that luxury. we have to go to this process. the r
it did after world war two to the economy in the 1960's. science, technology, everything grew. the economy boomed because we invested in people. that is what we need to do again. host: thank you. guest: i think growing the middle class is the key. a lot of these programs have helped to grow the middle class. a think social security helped grow the middle class. so many seniors have relied on social security, and it is not a gift. they worked for it. education -- when i ran for governor, in a middle-class area, 10% of college-aged kids were enrolled. now there are 50% that receive grants. that is not a gift that is something to help grow the middle class. host: jim, california. republican line. caller: $250,000 is not rich. the people on television betting for money, you should tax them. how much do you pay? the president and democrats suck up to these celebrities. they have to pay $40,000 to hang around the democrats. host: he says $250,000 and he criticized fund-raisers. guest: i think there is too much money in politics, and by the way, 80% of the $250,000 and above the inco
of the art oil spill prevention and response technologies, education research and training. and more than $1 billion will go to the united states coast guard trust fund to be available for clean up and coffer sation for those affected by oil spills in the gulf and throughout the united states. now as part of its guilty plea b.p. will retain a monitor for four years who will oversee safety and maintenance in regard to drilling in the gulf as well as an independent auditor who will conduct annual reviews to enshurep compliance with the terms of this agreement. the company will hire an ethics monitor to improve it's its conduct and foster robust cooperation with the government. now there can be no question that this historic announcement is a critical step forward and under scores the justice determination to stand with gulf coast communities. in february the settlement tote ling $90 million related to the company's clean water act liability for the deep water horizon disaster. and approximately $45 million of this total will go directly to the gulf in the form of penalties. but our work is far
to beat our behinds in november. they were investing in technology and infrastructure and a ground game that was beyond 21st century. their ability to identify their voter even when that voter looked like our voter. that's the interesting thing that your statistics are showing folks who looked like a republican voter turned out to be an obama voter because they identified them, worked them and got them to the polls. host: blake is on the phone on the republican line in alabama caller: \[indiscernible] that was a long long time ago i guess. thanks for service to the party. i see first of all -- i was curious about a couple of numbers but before i get to that just a quick point about the money that people are talking about, how much money, that money made no difference and it seems like money made all the difference. in the summer romney had no money and obama was savaging him and he could not respond. and he was -- as a rich fellow and didn't care about the people. he never responded because he had no money. money was the problem. but coming to the statistics what i'm curious what percen
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)